My views on the Glazers, MUST and the IPO

Manchester United is in the news once more. Only this time, it’s not because of achievements on the pitch, but because of incidents off it. Since the heartbreaking end to the season (well, to us reds, anyway), we’ve had signings, the usual dose of rumours, prophecies of doom, the usual summer activity. But what’s unusual is the feeling amongst some of the support that the club isn’t in good shape.

Since 2005, when the Glazers took over the club, there has been a section of the support which has refused to have anything to do with the club as long as the Glazers are in charge. The reasons for this are widely known, but this issue has come into greater focus because of the IPO launched by the club in the New York Stock Exchange. Initially, the IPO was meant to tackle the club’s $680 million debt. Now it transpires that the owners intend to use the proceeds of the IPO to pay only a part of the debt, and pocket the rest. This has provoked some furious reactions from fans, with even Sir Alex Ferguson being accused of complicity in the murky dealings of the Glazers.

When I started this blog, I did so because I wanted a space where I could put my views out. I did not think of whether anybody would be bothered about reading it. My intention was only indulging in a hobby. That remains true even today. Over the last few days, I have read many articles on the subject, which made my think of my own views. Do I approve of the Glazers? What of the IPO, or the allegations being thrown at Sir Alex Ferguson?

I am no fan of the Glazers. They should not have been allowed to buy the club, and it is United’s great misfortune that the fans allowed them to buy the club in the first place. They have taken millions out of the club to service a debt which isn’t ours. Now, what is the other side? The Manchester United Supporter’s Trust (MUST)? I do not approve of them either.

MUST claims that the only way out for United fans is to boycott the club. They argue that going to the stadium on matchdays, buying merchandise, subscribing to MUTV, all this puts money in the pockets of the Glazers. Their argument is that to fight the Glazers, fans must refuse to line their pockets. The logic of this argument is deeply flawed. If fans stopped going to the games, it is the team which will suffer. If the fans don’t support the team, it is the team which will suffer. MUST’s logic comes across as excessively militant, when a little foresight is essential. The fans are the lifeblood of any football club. If they boycott, everything will fall apart. To me, that a fan lets go of his/her club the moment he disapproves of the owners’ business model comes across as somewhat sad. That brings me to Sir Alex’s comment on “real fans”.

What rankles MUST and their supporters is the fact that Alex Ferguson, a man who used to campaign to reduce ticket prices, is part of a regime under whom prices are ridiculously high, the atmosphere in the stadium is stifling to say the least, and corporatization is in the extreme. They are entitled to feel this way; however, in my view, it is ridiculous of them to expect Sir Alex to lay out his reasons as to why he is comfortable with the Glazers’ ownership. If he says he is, then I think he’s earned the right to be taken at face value. I am sure he has his reasons as to why he feels the way he does. Is he entitled to outline those reasons for the support? Not really. However, Sir Alex must explain what he meant by “real fans”. Does it mean that he thinks that the actions of those who left the club and choose to boycott it because of the Glazers aren’t real fans? Or does he think that because you don’t approve with the mode of business, at the first sign of trouble, you cannot cut your links with the club and still claim to be fan?

I feel that the expectations of MUST with regard to Sir Alex are a little unfair. They want him to publicly speak out against the Glazers. They want an employee to speak out against his employer at a time when the employer is out to only make money for himself, even if it is at the cost of his asset. When Sir Alex was accused to benefiting directly from the IPO, he issued an angry riposte, clarifying that he does not benefit from the IPO; and that the allegation “insults me”. This has dented the credibility of the MUST crowd, because by tarnishing Sir Alex’s name, they open themselves to the accusation that there exist ulterior motives behind their posturing.

MUST have from the beginning, insisted on using strong-arm tactics that focussed solely on removing the Glazers. Where there existed a scope for a true bridge between the fans and supporters, they have proven to be nothing more than a militant organisation; to the point that they have alienated what could have been their trump card: Sir Alex Ferguson. That Duncan Drasdo, CEO of MUST, pays token respect to the boss (his twitter profile has him standing behind a picture of Sir Alex Ferguson), while wilfully dragging his name through the mud (the IPO allegation, conjecture on his role in the stud fiasco in 2005), calls into question their intentions. While the exit of the Glazers is something we all want, how is that being achieved? By militant tactics which probably will hurt the club much more than anything the Glazers do.

That does not mean that I support the Glazers. They should never have been allowed to own the club. Again, questions must be asked of MUST. When the board said no to the Glazers’ initial approach for the club (saying that the bid relied on a large amount of borrowing), it was seen as a victory for the club. However, a little more than a year later, the Glazers owned the club. Since the club before the sale was a PLC, the Glazers had to buy shares from the market, and it is feasible that MUST members sold these shares. Relying on militant tactics after the takeover, when they had enough shares to represent fans’ interest, seems strange. Now, they claim that the failure of the IPO will make the Glazers sell the club. That is by no means definitive. Early reports indicate that the IPO will not be as successful as the club hoped, which means a drop in the value of the club. On the one hand, a lesser value will mean greater possibility of the club being sold; on the other, it will mean lesser money for improving the team and reducing debt. If the Glazers do not sell the club in the event of a failed IPO, it means lesser revenue with no reduction in debt. A very worrying scenario.

The amazing part of all this is how the team continues to be successful. It is certainly a testament to Sir Alex’s genius. The disappointment of last season aside, our record over the last few years is incredible. It is unfortunate that factors in no way connected to the performance on the pitch are setting a pall of doom around the club, even if prophecies of doom seem excessive. It can only be hoped that the team emerges relatively unscathed from all of this. For that to happen, Sir Alex Ferguson must be allowed to do what he does best: win things on the football pitch.